Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states the tool produces and 'Overwrites vdd/strategy.md', which is a state-mutating file write, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the structured safety signal, so per the rules this scores 1 and is flagged as an annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: phase, purpose, and artifact come first, followed by preconditions and the two-pass mechanics. Every sentence carries operational information, though the parameter-relationship sentence could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers preconditions, ordering, overwrite behavior, the two-pass dispatch/synthesis flow, the amend alternative, and parameter aliasing. With an output schema present, return values need not be described, so an agent has everything required to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that availableTools and capabilities are aliases (pass one) and that researchFindings only takes effect on the second call. These relationships are not obvious from the schema alone, so it earns above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (produce research-backed strategy), the concrete artifact (vdd/strategy.md), and the contents (strategic pillars, competitive analysis, risk register) resolved from vision primers. It is clearly distinguished from siblings by naming vdd_vision and vdd_tactics as the phases it sits between.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the precondition (requires vdd/vision.md), the ordering (run after vdd_vision, before vdd_tactics), and the alternative for post-artifact changes (use vdd_amend). The two-pass usage is spelled out with the condition that selects each call, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.